Hal
was a Widower and had a daughter, Danica, from a previous marriage.
He then had two children with a new wife who left him when they were
toddlers. (She was reported to have taken up with her Courtenay
lawyer.) When our BC Family Courts put Hal through
it's torments of Imputed Income,
Gleaned Wages,
State Imposed Homelessness,
and
Debtor's Prison, they imposed these same torments on his
daughter Danica, then a Tween. Hal points out the Support Tables
assume the only children to support are the Payee's children.
You can see where that left Hal & Danica: homeless and
dependent on the kindnesses of neighbors.
EVERY other weekend for the past four and a half years, I've spent
three precious days with my two adolescent daughters. We play tennis
in summer, ski in winter, travel when the school schedule allows.
But no matter where we are, we're all keenly aware of the thin
membrane of secrecy that keeps us from being as close as we were
before their mom and I divorced. <Equal
Parenting eliminates this!!!>
Like most divorced fathers, I'm caught in
exactly the kind of nightmarish situation that experts on stress say
to avoid a great deal of responsibility, but very little power.I'm
the major source of support for my children; my financial
obligations are set by the state, and my wages automatically
garnished. (If I lost my job tomorrow, and couldn't keep up with my
payments, a warrant for my arrest would be issued within two
months.) But my influence over how my daughters are being raised is
limited, sometimes by decisions their mother makes that I have no
input into, and sometimes by their allegiance to her when she and I
are at odds. ... They'll forget to tell me
some detail of their lives or downright lie if they have to so I
won't feel sad that I've missed something they shared with their
mom, or raise issue over some decision she's made with which I might
not agree. As a result, I sometimes come away from visits or phone
calls feeling shaken, saddened and angry. My ex and I
have been to court over support issues, and we've been to court over
custody issues, and the legal battles inevitably trap our children
in the middle and force them to choose sides. Sadly, this is exactly
what not to do if you want to foster a loving parent-child bond. In
a study by a child psychologist, ...
The first step toward fostering a father and child reunion is to
make private mediation of the parenting provisions (physical
custody, legal custody and visiting) the standard procedure.
Allowing parents the chance to negotiate their support and
possibly give fathers more of a say in how their support is spent
will decrease the vitriol, and let fathers feel more like parents,
not just paychecks.
Second, we need to enact and enforce
sensible penalties for interfering with visits. Jailing a mother
is no way to solve the dispute; neither are financial penalties
that hurt her ability to care for the child. But mediation
perhaps compelled by the threat of financial penalty might be
the solution. It's estimated that one in five children of
divorce has not seen his or her father in the past year. Without
substantial rethinking of our current support and custody law,
children will continue to be alienated from their fathers, and
lawyers will remain on hand to soak up the resulting legal fees.
Just this month, I received a summons to attend a custody
conference at the Allentown, Pa., courthouse, and another letter
informing me that an accounting error has left me short on
support payments, and that my passport may be suspended. I want
to shield my daughters from these harsh truths. So these are the
secrets I'll be trying to keep from them as we gather together
for Father's Day. What secrets will they be keeping from
me?
Stephen Perrine, the editor in chief of Best Life magazine, is
the author of the forthcoming "Desperate Husbands."
NOTE-2006: Hal called to say the crises have passed as a
consequence only of the passage of time. Danica has now left
for College. He has cut his losses and is trying to find some
happiness in what he has left. Apart from the Imputed Income and
rematerialized Debtor's Prison issues and their Damages to Hal
personally, Hal points out that the Child Support Tables make no
provisions for children of the Father from a previous marriage. If
a Father is made homeless by being ravaged by our BC Family Courts (an
every day experience!), so is a Child of the Father when they are of a
previous marriage.
Check out
Hall Jeffery's Danica Petition
to put a stop to BC Judges who deny fathers
Equal Parenting
from also "imputing" income to the newly non-custodial
Father to arbitrarily raise the mother's Claim for
Child Support. BC Judges currently use Imputed Income,
Wrongful Attribution of
Court Costs (Looser/Dad pays Court Costs) and Wrongful Reclamation of Legal Aide Costs to
threaten Fathers who contemplate going into their Courtrooms
to fight for Equal Parenting with punitive
consequences for being the male Parent. This
gives Judges extraordinary political power to
intimidate and break down Canadian families who might not
otherwise fear a Judge. Fathers who are preoccupied
with getting past the Industry to see their children are the
easiest victims of punishing Judges. When the imaginary
moneys are not materialized into real dollar payments to
mothers, BC Judges may throw fathers into
JAIL:
UPDATE
We have received
numerous e mails requesting an update so I will deal with this here as
well.
We are currently awaiting judgment to
find out if I'm to go to jail for failing to pay support based on non
existent income -after being stripped of all assets at the end of four
years of litigation. On November 17,
2004, matters came before Justice Saunderson in Courtenay BC. Because
jail was involved I was appointed counsel through Legal Aid. Because of
the particulars of our case counsel was secured in Victoria - a 4 hour
drive from Courtenay, to ensure that our counsel that was at arm's
length from local lawyers (my ex's boyfriend amongst them). Two days
before the hearing I discovered that our counsel knew all of the
lawyers involved very well - having practiced beside them in Courtenay
for ten years . Because of this, separate from what our counsel
was doing, as insurance I filed an affidavit on the morning of the
hearing (not before) which contained:
a) Court
transcripts confirming our evidence had never even been read by
the court (let alone considered);
b) Letters from so many employers that an officer of the
court exclaimed they'd never seen anything like it in 30 years.
Judgment
was reserved. That was 73 days ago and I've not heard a peep.
"I may still go to jail but I will
have at least shredded the myth that any of this has anything to do with
justice or the well being of children....."
Hal does volunteer work
behind the scenes for parents on Hornby Island and in Courtenay. Hal is
also a volunteer at the Community Justice Centre in Courtenay and is
certified in conflict resolution from the Justice Institute in New
Westminster BC.
At the moment the best
encapsulation of Hal and Danica's Testimonial are represented by his links
shown here. Writing a Testimonial is always extremely difficult, and
often so overwhelming it cannot be prepared until years after the abuses
occurred. For Hal and Danica the abuses are ongoing.
We hope that in due course, we can present a clear concise Testimonial for
what Hal & Danica have gone through to bring them to the point that they
are now facing jail time as BC Court's "solution" to the problem of
non-payment
of Child support based on Imputed Income.
Imputed Income is
income Hal's Judge deemed him to be making for the purposes of determining
Hal's child support payments for two younger children the Judge disallowed
Hal to parent himself. If fathers' real incomes result in child
support payments that the Judge feels is too low, some Judges will
arbitrarily
"Impute (deem / attribute / assign) income"
to fathers to boost his indebtedness above that required by the already
"Fraudulent" Child Support Payments.
In Hal & Danica's case,
failure to pay child support based on his Judge's imaginary income has now
resulted in Hal's being imprisoned one week per month until his back
payments have been repaid.
The true purpose of Law
is not to abolish or restrain ...
but to preserve and
enlarge freedom.
John Locke 1632-1704
I
have decided not to defend myself further in Committal hearings. I am
now choosing to accept a jail term of one week for each month I fail to
pay support based on equations which grant no consideration for a child who exists
in my care - and imputed income which doesn't.
On November 17th 2004, in Courtenay BC, I will
simply inform the court I submit to the punishment my government
deems just and reasonable in discharging its duties to protect our
children - based on the evidence already in its possession.
This evidence INCLUDES.
1. Accusations of extortion which left us
undefended in the midst of hearings - a crime which never occurred
2. Letters from numerous employers (including
two protesting imputed income awards)
3. Photographic evidence and third party
testimony confirming that Danica was very much a part of this family until
litigation began in April 2000 - despite testimony which claimed ties
were severed 6 years ago ... in October 1994.
4. Court transcripts displaying the FMEP
garnisheed income and continued litigation during a period it was expressly
forbidden to do so by the Supreme Court.
5. Court transcripts which display no hearing
occurred on
a) our properties before they were stripped
from us; and,
b) Danica's Application FOR
consideration under sections 8,5, or 10 of guidelines
though the application was still judged to
be a 'RUSE'.
I submit to this punishment knowing not what
else to do. Further hearings only destroy us by attrition - and I don't
know how to recover from the position we've been left in.
HOWEVER, I DO
THIS WITH A CALL TO SIGN AND PASS ON
This petition: 1) speaks against - 'Imputing
income' 2) speaks against garnisheeing income below income assistance
levels 3) speaks for recognizing all
wholly dependent children in hearings 4) an end to the lion's den court
based adversarial approach to solving family issues. If you cannot agree
with all 4 points simply add suggestions in the comment section provided
- but do please sign in general protest.
Forward e mail to Premier
Campbell and Attorney General requesting that counsel be appointed Danica
Jeffery and an independent public inquiry be conducted - if our situation
persists.
Because we must attend to a many details in our own lives
for now - we must withdraw from discussion groups. However, please feel free
to write us directly by e mail.
Please know our spirits are good and we feel our
cause is just and essential. Though we are considering legal action - a
request will be sent to those we are so heavily conflicted with PRIOR to
doing so. In addition, separate from committal hearings, I will be making
one last application to the Supreme Court in an attempt to intercede at that
level.
It is indeed the truth that neither Danica or I blame
anyone . We all inherited the adversarial system from centuries
ago. However, in light of technology, information flow, and the
knowledge available today, there is no need to carry on with this fashion
any further - especially given the costs that ultimately sap our children of
resources - that in many cases took parents a lifetime to build.
With sincere thanks and gratitude for the
support we have found
FMEP COUNSEL AL LESLIE (ACCOMPANIED BY EX) PUSHED FOR JAIL TERM
DEFENDED BY DISPLAYING OUR EVIDENCE WAS NEVER EVEN
LOOKED AT IN SUPREME COURT BY JUSTICE SINGH -
<Editor's Note: It is a commonly reported of BC Judges that
evidence offered in the Defense of Fathers is left unread and discarded.
They then make arbitrary Judgments in boilerplate with no reading of the
Defense. This they do in breach of
Fundamental Justice >
THOUGH WE WERE TREATED AS IF OUR EVIDENCE HAD BEEN HEARD AND MATTER DEALT WITH
WHEN WE CAME BEFORE JUSTICE HIGGINBOTHAM IN THE LOWER COURT - AND HE SENTENCED
JAIL.
JUDGMENT WAS RESERVED BY JUSTICE SAUNDERSON -
AWAITING VERDICT - PROBABLY NEXT WEEK
FOR THOSE CURIOUS - HERE IS AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED
SORRY TO BE SO BORING THESE DAYS
TTYL
H
sOUnDs
from CaNadA
DEMOCRACY MUST BE MORE THAN TWO WOLVES
AND A SHEEP
If no
settlement can be reached and Hal Jeffery is incarcerated at the end of
four years of litigation in S 5373 / E0 387 / and F 6192 - I am asking
that a full and independent public enquiry be conducted with respect to
these proceedings given evidence whichseems to indicate:
1.
That Hal and Danica were left without counsel right in the middle of hearingsbased
on unfounded of accusations of criminal activity (amongst other things)
which resulted in them losing any opportunity to resume an adjourned
trial before their properties foreclosed on less than 24 hours later.
2. That Danica remained a
part of the family after separation in 1994 - and contact was
not severeduntil
litigation began in April 2000. (one presumes for financial reasons
only).
3. That litigation and the
garnisheeing income was engaged in by a publicly funded independent corporation
(the FMEP), during a period the Supreme Court had expressly forbidden
this.
4. That litigation throughout hearings sought
more than there was to lay claim to, compelling
court hearings which could not possibly
benefit either side of the family - only those paid for court
time.
In addition, we protest any parent being sent to jail for failing to pay
support based on 'IMPUTED' rather than actual income. We also ask
that counsel be appointed Danica Jan Jeffery (to commence legal action
on her behalf),
against those who have
profited
from endless litigation being brought against her father which denied
her her most basic of human rights for the last four years.
After decades of being encouraged to
become a part of our children's lives and investing our hearts,
fathers have discovered how undervalued all this has turned out to
be. The father's movement isn't against anything at all -
it's about loss and doing our best to speak for something
that matters.
The chance to hang out with our sons
without argument or them becoming 'custody chips' for barter -
and knowing the delight of our youngest daughters, helped to remain
part of our lives even in hard times, who know they are safe
enough with us to confide in whispered asides .... 'that jokes are
way funnier when you get them'.
It's also about standing up
to the untold harm being inflicted on by highly influential parties
with a vested interest in promoting conflict - not solving it.
I ask you - and I challenge you -
to read what you find at the above links. Pray by the end you will
come to see the need for moms and dads everywhere to stand together
- now more than ever - and then sign this petition given common cause.
Sincerely,
Hal and Danica Jeffery
Jeffery, Hal & Danica: Imputed
Income, Debtor's Prison Reinstituted
Courtenay Father to be sent to "Debtors Prison" for
non-payment of child support on "Imputed Income".
Daughter of previous marriage homeless
In
"Women and the Process of Constitutional Reform"
McLellan warns that
<Horrors!>
"Provincial
Legislatures may impose a presumption of Joint
Custody... and perpetuate the domination of men over
women"
"I am writing on behalf of
Darrin Bruce White. I am the oldest of his four
children. My name is Ashlee A D Barnett-White. ...
No one would listen to my father , no one
would give him a chance to speak. ... My dad was an abused
husband, he was abused by his wife, and the justice system.
... He was a kind man who fought a good fight but no matter
what he did or said, he could never win with this system.
Things need to change for all fathers going through this
same thing. We need to help, too many kids go without a
father because of this , too many kids are hurt."
Ashlee A D Barnett-White, Eldest Daughter
I, Harold Arthur Jeffery, of
375 21st St, Unit 1, Courtenay, BC, do swear and make oath as
follows:
Per Exhibit A
filed herein, I offer the court evidence of continuing efforts to secure
gainful employment. This exhibit is divided into two parts. Part one
contains letters received from employers from August 11, 2004 to
date. Part two contains applications made prior to the hearings before
Justice Higginbotham, submitted to the affidavit record for hearing in
the Supreme Court in EO 387 on July 27. 2004, before Justice Singh.
Per Exhibit B
filed herein, contains letters confirming continuing volunteer work to further
my re-training in conflict resolution.
However, despite the above, I
cannot help but feel the court has become hostile to me as a result of
material contained in the above application in EO 387, not being looked at
because I did not file a brief for this hearing.
Based on this, I have
resigned myself to incarceration and have made provision for the child in my
full time care, Danica Jan Jeffery (temporary foster care under Kith and Kin
provisions with the Ministry of Children and Family Development).
At present we continue to
exist on roughly $1,000 per month for the two of us (per my Affidavit and
financial statement filed on June 10, 2004, in EO 387).
BACKGROUND / Supreme Court EO
387
The last time we feel our
evidence was considered was on Oct. 3, 2003. At this time Madam Justice
Balance saw fit to vary the order of Justice Shabbits of Feb. 22, 2001. She
reduced imputed income from $35,000 to $22,000 effective March 1, 2003, and
varied child support owing to the Plaintiff by myself downwards from $ 504
to $ 328/ month, per Exhibit C filed herein, para 1 and 2.
At this time, the portion of
my application to further reduce or cancel additional child maintenance
arrears, was adjourned generally, per exhibit C above, para 3.
At this time, Madam Justice
Balance also ordered all further child maintenance arrears enforcement be
stayed for a period of 8 months ( to June 1, 2004), with the exception
of $98.70 per month being garnisheed from my pension , per Exhibit C above
para 4.
In her Oral reasons for
Judgment, Madam Justice Balance made the following observations with respect
to a) the initial award of Justice Shabbits - b) my
efforts to secure gainful employment - and c) the hardship being
suffered by this side of the family, describing our situation as tortured,
per Exhibit D
filed herein
EXCERPT / SUPREME COURT
/ E0 387 / Oct 3, 2003
Oral Reasons for
Judgment
para 5:
future employment
prospects appeared optimistic. However the evidence before me
overwhelmingly
indicates that such optimism was ill-founded ;
para 6:
the scope of
his employment inquiries include, but have not been limited to work in
the specialized area
of mediation. As well, he has not confined his search for employment to
the Vancouver Island area, but
has branched out and applied for positions in Vancouver and other
parts of the Lower Mainland .
para 8:
genuine
unanticipated difficulty encountered by Mr. Jeffery in finding
remunerative employment, despite
his relatively good efforts, could not have reasonably been known at the
time that the February 2001
order was made.
para 17
I conclude that there is
no justifiable basis upon which this court ought to award
retroactive support as
sought by the plaintiff. In fact, it is my view, that
if I were to do so, I would convert an already
tortured situation into an unduly harsh one.
Despite the above order,
the FMEP initiated enforcement proceedings on March 19, 2004,
per Exhibit E
filed herein. This exhibit also contains counter motion I filed on April 17,
2004, where, in para 2, I requested a stay of enforcement proceedings to allow
me to bring the application, adjourned by Madam Justice Balance per item 6
above, back before the Supreme Court. This was granted, by Justice Doherty, and
the matter came before Justice Singh in EO 387 on July 27, 2004.
Exhibit F filed
herein, displays my affidavit filed for the above hearing. The
application sought consideration for the child named Danica Jan Jeffery,
under section 10 of guidelines - possible further consideration under either
sections 5 or 8 of guidelines (based on photographic evidence and third
party testimony in its exhibits. In specific, this evidence affirms family
relations between the petitioner and Danica right up until litigation began
in April 2000, and that this relationship did not terminate in October 1994,
as the Petitioner alleged.
Exhibit G
filed herein, displays the as yet unheard counter claim, filed March 16, 2000,
with respect to Danicas entitlement to at least some consideration under
guidelines.
Exhibit H filed
herein, is the court transcript from the hearing before Justice Singh in EO
387 of July 27, 2004. where on page 9, lines 6 through 9, confirms the
court did not look at my affidavit or exhibits because of my failure to file
a brief and matters were adjourned generally, based on this
technicality.
Pursuant to this, matters
came before Justice Higginbotham on August 10, 2004, in F 6192, and an
interim order fixed fine and debt totaling roughly $ 17,000, without the
above application or counterclaim ever being heard.
I have asked Ms. Zofia
Tabaczuk-Porter to request that matters be adjourned in F 6192 until the
above application can be heard.
In addition, I have made
counsel aware of my belief that our very troubled family (and the court
itself) might stand to benefit from the Petitioner and I submitting to a
mediation. process prior to this application being made. I truly
believe that after five years of adversarial litigation in both EO 387 and S
5373, all parties stand to gain by such a process.
Unless the Plaintiff has
undergone a loss of income since her financial statement of Feb 2000, her
income ranges between $ 35,000 and $ 40,000 - with two children in her full
time care. My line 150 income last year was $11,666 and FMEP
records display that $2,310 was garnisheed from pension, GST rebates, and
income tax refunds in year 2003 with one child in my full time care.
In addition, our properties have been sold off under court order in S 5373,
and all proceeds were directed to the Plaintiff.
I can assure the court I
truly have no motive to want to continue to live in poverty and in a state
which leaves me unable to even feed my other children when they visit.
All of
which is respectfully submitted at YADA YADA YADA
Copyright 2002 equalparenting-bc.ca
Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages exercising democratic
rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or
reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.
sOUnDs
from CaNadA
